[Cite as In re R.S., 2016-Ohio-1492.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF WAYNE ) 

IN RE: R.S. 

 

 

 

C.A. No. 15AP0057 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO 

CASE No. 14-0074-AND 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: April 11, 2016 

 

SCHAFER, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant, Rebecca M. (“Mother”), appeals from a judgment of the Wayne 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights to her 

minor child, R.S., and placed her in the permanent custody of Wayne County Children Services 

Board (“CSB”). This Court affirms. 

I. 

{¶2} Appellant is the mother of R.S., born November 2, 2002. William B. was 

determined to be R.S.’s biological father by genetic testing conducted early in the trial court 

proceedings. Mother later claimed that she had been raped by William B., who was a friend of 

her own father. William B. is serving a life sentence for aggravated murder and voluntarily 

surrendered his parental rights to R.S. at the start of the permanent custody hearing. He is not a 

party to the present appeal. 
2 

 

{¶3} When this case began, Mother and Benjamin M. were married. R.S., Benjamin 

M.’s six-year-old daughter, and John S., the maternal grandfather (“Grandfather”), lived with 

them. CSB’s early investigation revealed concerns that R.S. inappropriately touched the sixyear-old child. A companion case was filed regarding the young child. At some point, Benjamin 

M.’s daughter went to live with a relative, and Mother and Benjamin M. were divorced. 

{¶4} Prior to Mother’s marriage to Benjamin M., Mother had been in a nearly ten-year 

relationship with Jason B. Jason B. was previously considered to be the father of R.S. He 

remains factually significant to this case because in 2009, R.S. reported to social workers that 

Jason B. had sexually abused her1

 and because Mother continued a relationship with him and to 

accept financial support from him. 

{¶5} The present case began on January 14, 2014, when CSB filed a complaint in 

juvenile court, alleging that R.S. was a dependent child. The complaint set forth several 

concerns: sexual abuse of and by R.S.; Mother’s mental health; a family history with children 

services involving educational neglect, inappropriate supervision, and inappropriate discipline; 

and the cleanliness and safety of the home. The agency sought protective supervision and, 

alternatively, temporary custody of R.S. The court permitted the child to remain in Mother’s 

home under the protective supervision of CSB. 

{¶6} In March 2014, R.S. was adjudicated dependent, and the same custodial 

arrangement was continued. At disposition, in April 2014, the trial court was apparently told that 

Mother had been sexually abused by Grandfather. Accordingly, the court issued an order barring 

all contact between R.S. and Grandfather until further notice. The trial court did not find good 

 1

 Mother said that she was not aware of Jason B.’s abuse of R.S. until R.S. told a social 

worker about it following an incident of domestic violence between Mother and Jason B. 
3 

 

cause for removal of R.S. from Mother’s home, but stressed to Mother that any violation of the 

Court’s orders could be grounds for removal of the child. Thus, R.S. remained in the custody of 

Mother and under the protective supervision of CSB. 

{¶7} The trial court adopted CSB’s proposed case plan and also imposed additional 

orders. The court required Mother to: (1) consistently attend individual counseling; (2) ensure 

that R.S. consistently attended individual counseling to address trauma from sexual abuse; (3) 

maintain a clean and safe home, ensuring appropriate supervision and interaction with the 

children; (4) complete a substance abuse assessment, follow all recommendations, and submit to 

random drug screens when requested by CSB; and (5) enroll in parenting classes. The entire 

family was to complete a family/psychological assessment and follow any recommendations, 

particularly in regard to the safety of the children. Housing was later added to Mother’s case 

plan because she lost her housing in the process of divorcing Benjamin M. Finally, the trial 

court specifically instructed Mother to not tell R.S. what to discuss during her counseling 

sessions. 

{¶8} Concerns soon developed that Mother was permitting R.S. to be around 

Grandfather despite the no contact order. A CSB caseworker went to the home on August 12, 

2014, to investigate these concerns. Mother admitted that Grandfather was living in the house 

and that she permitted unsupervised contact between him and R.S. Mother also admitted her 

knowledge of the no contact order. Accordingly, the social worker called the police. Mother 

and Benjamin M. began screaming at each other, and he threatened to leave. Benjamin M. was 

upset because he believed Mother had hit his child and also because Mother allowed R.S. to be 

around Grandfather. The police calmed the couple down and waited while he packed a bag and 

left. Because the police believed it was not safe for R.S. to remain in the home, they took R.S. 
4 

 

into custody pursuant to Juv.R. 6 and CSB arranged for a placement. Mother apparently told 

R.S. to lie about the fact that Grandfather was staying in the home. R.S. later reported that 

sometimes Grandfather shared a bed with her while he was living in the home. The following 

day, the trial court granted emergency temporary custody of R.S. to CSB. Mother was charged 

with child endangerment and was eventually sentenced to 60 days in jail and 24 months of 

probation. 

{¶9} The trial court granted CSB’s motion for a six-month extension of temporary 

custody and also granted Mother’s motion to appoint independent legal counsel for R.S. In time, 

CSB moved for permanent custody and, alternatively, a second six-month extension of 

temporary custody. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for extension, granted 

CSB’s motion for permanent custody, and terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother has 

appealed and assigned one error for review. 

II. 

Assignment of Error

THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING PERMANENT CUSTODY TO WAYNE 

COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES AND SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A 

SECOND SIX MONTH EXTENSION, AS A GRANT OF PERMANENT 

CUSTODY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶10} Mother asserts that the trial court’s judgment granting permanent custody is 

against the weight of the evidence and that the trial court should have granted a six-month 

extension instead. Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent 

custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find clear and convincing evidence of both 

prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the 

temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, the 

child or another child of the same parent has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent 
5 

 

three times, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or 

should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) 

that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an 

analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re 

William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99 (1996). 

{¶11} In determining whether the judgment below is manifestly against the weight of 

the evidence, this Court “weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the 

credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder 

of fact] clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] 

must be reversed and a new trial ordered.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Eastley v. 

Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. “In weighing the evidence, the court of 

appeals must always be mindful of the presumption in favor of the finder of fact.” Id. at ¶ 21. 

{¶12} The trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test was 

satisfied because R.S. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should 

not be placed with either parent. See R.C 2151.414(B)(1)(a). In support of that finding, the trial 

court determined that the child’s father was incarcerated for life and had surrendered his parental 

rights to R.S. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(12). The trial court also determined that, notwithstanding 

reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency, Mother failed to substantially 

remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). 

In particular, the trial court found that Mother cannot provide a safe and stable living situation 

where R.S. will not be at risk of sexual abuse. Mother challenges this finding as being against 

the weight of the evidence. 
6 

 

Substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home 

{¶13} The trial court had substantial evidence before it to support the conclusion that, 

following placement outside the home, Mother “failed continuously and repeatedly to 

substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home.” Id. 

{¶14} R.S. was removed from her home on August 12, 2014 by police pursuant to 

Juv.R. 6. The child was removed when Mother permitted Grandfather to reside in her home with 

R.S. and to have unsupervised contact with R.S. in violation of a court order. Since the removal, 

Mother has not remedied the conditions causing R.S. to be placed outside the home. At the time 

of removal, Mother and R.S. resided with Benjamin M., his daughter, and Grandfather. 

Grandfather was paying many of their bills. When Mother and Benjamin M. divorced, Mother 

lost that housing and, since then, she has resided with either Jason B. or again with Grandfather 

in her sister Jessica’s home. 

{¶15} While Jessica testified that she herself pays the rent for her home, Mother testified 

that Grandfather pays the rent. Both agreed that Grandfather paid the bills for cable, electricity, 

six cell phones, and “makes sure that everybody has what they need.” Grandfather also provides 

Mother with an insured vehicle for her transportation. Gwen Geitgey, the first caseworker 

assigned to the case, testified that Mother reported being appreciative of Grandfather and the 

way he pays for her things, but Mother also stated that he has been controlling, hurtful, and 

abusive to both her and R.S. 

{¶16} Mother continued to maintain a relationship with Jason B. as well and stayed at 

his home periodically. Mother claims that she despises Jason B. for what he did to her daughter, 

yet she continues to see him and stay at his home because he provides her with money and 

occasional transportation. Mother denies that their relationship is sexual, and states that “now it 
7 

 

is more just a friendship.” She specifically admitted that she stays with Jason B. because she 

needs the money as a supplement to what Grandfather gives her. 

{¶17} Thus, since the time of R.S.’s removal, Mother has continued to have regular 

contact with Grandfather and Jason B. She has relied on these two men, whom she has alleged 

to have sexually abused either her or her daughter to secure housing, food, transportation, and 

basic necessities. Then, at the permanent custody hearing, Mother reversed herself on 18 years 

of accusations about Grandfather’s abuse. She testified that she had made up the stories because 

she was mad at Grandfather and was rebelling against him. She denied that she changed her 

story out of concern that he might otherwise stop his financial support. Mother claims there is no 

longer a concern in allowing R.S. to have contact with Grandfather, and she would like R.S. to 

be able to reside with her and Grandfather at Jessica’s home. She added, however, that “my dad 

can be very controlling at times.” Mother stated that she would abide by the court’s order if it 

determined that she could not permit contact between R.S. and Grandfather. Jessica also sees no 

reason to prohibit contact between R.S. and Grandfather. In addition, Mother has not stated any 

intention of ending her relationship with Jason B., but nevertheless guaranteed that R.S. would 

not be around him. 

{¶18} The trial court found that Mother was not credible in recanting her past 

accusations about Grandfather and in promising to protect R.S. in the future. The court found 

instead that Mother is still not able to provide a safe and stable living situation for R.S. where she 

will not be at risk of being sexually abused. The trial court’s findings are supported by the 

weight of the evidence. 

{¶19} The record demonstrates that Mother had been making accusations about 

Grandfather’s sexual abuse of her for the last 18 years. Three caseworkers and the guardian ad 
8 

 

litem all presented testimony that Mother told them of inappropriate behavior by Grandfather 

towards R.S., including grooming behavior. Grooming was later described by one of the 

caseworkers as “[b]ehaviors that someone does to [another] to form a relationship or an 

attachment or get them comfortable with you” with the intention to eventually have a “sexually 

inappropriate” relationship. Mother permitted R.S. to have contact with Grandfather in the past 

despite the existence of a no contact order. Mother and her sister Jessica have long relied on 

Grandfather for many of their basic living expenses, and Mother continues to rely on Jason B. for 

financial support as well. Jessica claims she can provide housing without Grandfather’s support, 

but she has not presented a realistic plan. Mother has no independent income. She is not 

employed and her application for social security disability was recently denied. 

{¶20} The testimony of mental health professionals also supports the findings of the trial 

court. The evaluating psychologist found that Mother and R.S. both have long histories of being 

victimized and sexually abused. Psychological testing disclosed that Mother has a dependent 

personality disorder with strong avoidant traits. As explained by the psychologist, such 

individuals have great difficulty acting autonomously and can often be victimized by others due 

to a fear of abandonment. They also have difficulty dealing with stress or change and tend to 

hope situations will just go away rather than actively confronting problems and dealing with 

them. In addition, tests showed that Mother had major stressors in all areas of her life and was at 

risk for the physical abuse or neglect of children. The psychologist recommended that Mother’s 

contact with R.S. be closely supervised. She recommended therapy for Mother and advised that 

she “is going to need to be involved in therapy consistently for several years for change to 

occur.” Mother attended counseling fairly regularly, but had made no progress in addressing her 

mental health issues. This was said to be because Mother did not fully participate or engage in 
9 

 

her counseling. The caseworker said Mother believed she did not need counseling and did not 

want to discuss her personal matters at sessions. 

{¶21} The psychologist also evaluated R.S. and described her as very parentified, which 

she said was concerning in an 11-year-old. According to the psychologist, R.S. acts more grown 

up than she really is and appears to know much adult information. She testified that R.S. misses 

Mother and wishes she was back with her, but R.S. also wishes Mother would get better and not 

have as many physical or emotional difficulties. The psychologist said R.S. was experiencing 

many symptoms of trauma, anxiety, and depression, but believed R.S. could overcome her 

difficulties through counseling. 

{¶22} R.S.’s counselor also testified. She explained that R.S. did not begin to make 

good progress until she was placed in foster care and her attendance at weekly counseling 

sessions became more consistent. R.S. also began to engage more openly after the trial judge 

admonished Mother not to tell her daughter what to say to the counselor. While R.S. was 

comfortable remaining in foster care, being adopted, or returning home, she was excited about 

the possibility of going home. The counselor testified that R.S. was excited about going home 

“so that she can make sure mom is safe and cared for, takes her medications regularly and that 

she can kind of monitor who’s in mom’s life.” R.S. said she would make sure Mother took her 

medications on time and if she asked for more medication, R.S. would tell her “no.” R.S. also 

expressed concern about Mother’s safety. She expressed fear or anxiety about some of the 

people Mother placed in her own life, although she believes she would be able to control those 

situations and who comes into the house. R.S. reported that Jason B. had threatened both her and 

Mother. She believes she can keep herself safe. The counselor testified that it is not ageappropriate for R.S. to be concerned about caring for a parent to this extent. She explained that 
10 

 

she has worked on this in counseling sessions with R.S., and R.S. now knows that this does not 

have to be her role. The therapist believes R.S. is capable of bonding with a new family who 

intend to adopt her and also believes that adoption would not impede her progress in therapy. 

{¶23} A final concern in regard to Mother’s ability to safely parent is Mother’s 

judgment. Mother testified that she sometimes drives a car when she knows she should not, 

either because of recently taking her narcotic pain medication, fatigue, stress, or migraines. She 

explained that when she has “Court stuff” to do and no one to drive her, “I have to take the risk 

of doing it[.]” She acknowledged that this puts herself as well as other drivers on the road at 

risk. 

{¶24} Therefore, the evidence fully supports the trial court finding that Mother has not 

remedied the conditions that caused the removal of the child from the home. By the time of the 

permanent custody hearing, Mother still had not demonstrated that she could provide a safe, 

stable living situation for herself and her daughter. She has continued to rely on Grandfather and 

Jason B., two men she accused of being sexually abusive of her and her daughter, for the 

financial support of her basic needs. Mother has not removed either Grandfather or Jason from 

her life, nor has she demonstrated that she could support herself and her daughter without their 

financial assistance. Mother is not in a position to protect R.S. from further abuse. In addition, 

Mother has not resolved her substance abuse issues and, despite fairly consistent attendance in 

counseling sessions, she has not made any progress on her mental health concerns. The first 

prong findings that Mother has not remedied the concerns that caused the removal of R.S. from 

the home and that R.S. cannot or should not be returned to Mother in a reasonable time are not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. 
11 

 

Best interest of the child 

{¶25} We next consider the evidence regarding the second prong best interest factors as 

set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in 

a child’s best interest, the juvenile court must consider all the relevant factors, including those 

enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D): the interaction and interrelationships of the child, the wishes 

of the child, the custodial history of the child, the child’s need for permanence in his life and 

whether that can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody, and whether any of the 

factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(7) to (11) apply. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e). “Although the 

trial court is not precluded from considering other relevant factors, the statute explicitly requires 

the court to consider all of the enumerated factors.” In re Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 20711, 

2002 WL 5178, *3 (Jan. 2, 2002); see also In re Palladino, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2002-G-2445, 

2002-Ohio-5606, ¶ 24. 

{¶26} The first best interest factor requires consideration of the relevant personal 

interactions and interrelationships of the child. Mother consistently attended visitation with R.S. 

and usually brought food or snacks to the visits. Mother and R.S. were said to be bonded, to love 

each other, and to enjoy the time spent together. For example, they enjoyed doing their hair and 

make-up together. Nevertheless, Mother’s two hours of weekly supervised visits were never 

increased in frequency, duration, nor did they become less restricted after a year of visits. As set 

forth more fully above, R.S. is very concerned about Mother’s well-being and she wants to take 

care of Mother, protect her, and control who is in her life. Overall, the evidence does not 

demonstrate that their relationship is a healthy one. 

{¶27} At the time of the permanent custody hearing, R.S. had been in a foster home for 

a year and was said to be doing well there. Once she entered foster care, her attendance at 
12 

 

counseling sessions improved and she made great progress. Her hygiene and behavior also 

improved. She is no longer on a behavioral Independent Educational Plan at school. She has 

made friends and is getting good grades. She now tries to make better choices and is not shy 

about expressing herself. She has developed age appropriate social skills and behaviors. 

{¶28} There is little evidence of a continuing and positive relationship between R.S. and 

extended family members. 

Wishes of the child 

{¶29} The wishes of the child were expressed by the child’s attorney at the beginning of 

the permanent custody hearing. She stated that R.S. “would like to return home to her mother, if 

she can be the child and mother act as an adult and mother is not living with Jason.” Upon being 

asked by the trial judge to elaborate on what that means, the attorney responded that R.S. feels 

that she was often forced to be the reasonable person in the home when she was living with 

Mother. The attorney believes R.S. would like to see Mother succeed on her case plan so she 

could be reunited with her, but R.S. also realizes that Mother has not made the necessary 

progress. Nonetheless, she loves Mother and would like to live with her. 

{¶30} The guardian ad litem recommended permanent custody as being in the best 

interest of the child. The guardian ad litem said it was clear to her that Mother could not take 

care of herself, and she did not see how Mother could take care of a child. Caseworker Rebecca 

Mollohan, the last case worker to serve on the case, agreed that permanent custody is in the best 

interest of R.S. 
13 

 

Custodial history of the child 

{¶31} R.S. lived with Mother and Jason B. for most of her early years. When this case 

began, R.S. resided with Mother and under the protective supervision of CSB for eight months. 

She then resided in foster care for approximately one year. 

Whether the child is in need of a legally secure permanent placement 

{¶32} R.S.’s counselor testified that she believes permanency is important for any child 

including R.S. R.S.’s foster home is not a potential adoptive home, but the foster mother is 

willing to provide a home for R.S. until a permanent placement is found. R.S.’s counselor 

testified that R.S. is capable of bonding with an adoptive family and adoption would not impede 

her progress in therapy 

{¶33} CSB investigated possible relative placements, including the maternal 

grandmother as well as Mother’s brother and two sisters, Jennifer and Jessica. None produced 

placement options that were in the best interest of R.S. 

{¶34} The maternal grandmother had a history with child welfare and of criminal 

behavior. Mother’s brother failed to provide needed information to proceed and also had a 

disqualifying criminal record. R.S. indicated that she did not want to live with her maternal aunt 

Jennifer, stating that she had observed violence in that home. Mother opposed placement with 

Jennifer for similar reasons. The guardian ad item did not think R.S. should be put into a 

situation where she could be potentially traumatized. Finally, there is evidence that her maternal 

aunt Jessica lacked stability. She had moved several times recently, was still married to one 

man, was living with another, and had been with a third within the last year. At the time of the 

permanent custody hearing, Grandfather was living in Jessica’s home, along with five others. 

Grandfather was providing significant financial support to this household. Jessica said that she 
14 

 

did not believe the accusations Mother made about Grandfather. The guardian ad litem believed 

that R.S. needs stability regarding who will be in her home and her relationships with them. The 

guardian ad litem also expressed concern about Jessica’s ability to protect R.S. Moreover, none 

of the relatives filed a motion for legal custody in the trial court. See R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). 

{¶35} Caseworker Rebecca Molhollan specifically testified that Mother could not 

remedy these concerns within the time of a six-month extension. There is no evidence in the 

record that suggests that Mother could do so. 

{¶36} Upon consideration, the record does not demonstrate that the trial court clearly 

lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice when it found that permanent custody is 

in the best interest of R.S. See Eastley, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, at ¶ 20. Father

surrendered his parental rights to R.S., and Mother has not demonstrated her ability to provide a 

safe, secure, and stable environment for her daughter. 

{¶37} The weight of the evidence supports the trial court decision to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights to the child and grant permanent custody to CSB. Id. Mother’s assignment of 

error is overruled. 

III. 

{¶38} Mother’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Wayne 

County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed. 

 Judgment affirmed. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
15 

 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Wayne, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellant. 

 

 JULIE A. SCHAFER 

 FOR THE COURT 

CARR, P. J. 

HENSAL, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

JEREMY M. SZUCS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. 

DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and MELODY L. BRIAND, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for Appellee. 

MARIE MOORE, Guardian ad Litem.